Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

If the other commissioners would introduce themselves, please, starting on my right.

Stu Nichols.

Betty Turner.

Keith Peterson. Morrissey Downing. Paul G. Gilmer Sr. Ted Oliver.

Thank you. Please note that this meeting is being conducted in person and online, and if anyone participating online needs help with Zoom, please email staff at zoningadministration at greensboro-nc.gov. Members of the Commission are appointed by the City Council and we serve without pay. The Commission reviews all original zoning and annexation cases and rezoning requests for the City of Greensboro, and each Commissioner normally visits each site prior to the meeting. The procedure used for all public hearings is as follows. The planning staff will present background information and make a recommendation. The applicant will present a short summary on how he or she communicated with the neighborhood and why the request was reasonable. Other persons in favor of the request may speak for a total of 10 minutes, and this time is shared with the applicant. Speakers opposed to the request will share 10 minutes of speaking time. And then those in favor of the request will share five minutes of rebuttal time. And those in opposition to the request will then have five minutes of rebuttal time. At the end of the speaking time, we will close the public hearing. Any commission member may ask questions once a presenter has completed their presentation. All commissioners are required to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. Now, in an effort to run the meeting more efficiently, the Commission may reorganize the meeting agenda. Cases in which no opposition has been expressed to the Planning Department or in which no speakers have signed up to speak in opposition and in which Commission members do not feel necessitates an in-depth discussion will be moved to the top of the agenda. Staff will provide a shortened presentation for these expedited cases and applicants, if desired, will have two minutes to address the Commission to provide any additional information the Commission wants to know. And expedited cases will then be discussed and voted on by the Commission. When speaking here tonight, please direct all questions and comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not to the staff. And the Commission will ask staff to comment on any other questions. When a case is called that you are interested in, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and if you are participating online, please find and use the raise hand function under the reaction button. You will be called upon to speak in the order in which hands were raised. All approved or denied cases receiving six or more votes will constitute final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. All cases receiving a majority of favorable votes but less than six will be subject to a public hearing by the City Council. And all cases involving annexation are also subject to final approval by the City Council. Participants in the Zoom meeting will be able to view the meeting and speak when they are called upon. This meeting is being recorded and televised on Greensboro Television Network, and the telecast is being closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Now we will hear from our attorney regarding additional items we need to consider or cannot consider.

Thank you, Chair Steens, and good evening, everyone. Much of the Commission's work this evening will relate to the consideration of rezoning applications. I would just like to remind everyone in attendance that when the commission considers these rezoning applications, the determinations that the commission makes are based on land uses that are allowed in the zoning district that has been put forth in the application and any conditions that have been proposed by the applicant. These rezoning decisions are legislative decisions that take broad policy questions into account. And those considerations can be summarized by the factors that are outlined in the reasonableness statements that you will hear the commissioners read when they make a motion on each item. Now, land use impacts on public infrastructure are relevant rezoning matters. It's important to note that the commission is not here to determine all details of the development, though. That process involves staff input and evaluation that goes beyond the scope of the commission's work in this forum tonight. If a rezoning would generate a certain amount of traffic flow, for example, the commissioners will have been provided with a summary traffic impact study. Meanwhile, many site-specific development features, such as the particular means of stormwater management, are evaluated through the technical review committee. Lastly, concerns that are not related to land use are not germane to the commissioners. Considerations of rezoning applications, for example, generalized concerns about crime rates and questions of who may own, live at, or use a subject property are not for the Commission's consideration. If there are questions about matters that are not addressed here this evening, those can be referred to the Planning Department or city technical staff as appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. I need to acknowledge that we have two absences tonight, Erica Glass and Katherine Magan.

Do we have any continuances for those draw walls? Yes, we have the applicant for 3663 Lewiston Road and 4931ZZ and 4937ZZ Hackamore Road here to request a continuance.

Okay. Does staff want to talk about it?

Chair Skeens, if I may, perhaps before we do that. Could we get to the approval of minutes? I want to make sure we didn't skip that.

Well, I just skipped right over that.

No worries. No worries.

Okay. We have the minutes from the May 18th, 2026 meeting.

Mr. Kilmer, move to approve the meetings, minutes from May 18th, 2026.

Do I hear a second?

Mr. Nichols, I second.

motion to approve and a second all in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed like sign now we're official the minutes are approved and we have notification that we our first case which is actually old business is a continuance uh request for continuance um we don't need to do a presentation on that

No, staff doesn't need to. You can hear from the applicant. It just needs to state whether it's going to be a 30-day continuance or a 60-day continuance.

If the applicant, you have two minutes to talk about why you need a continuance.

My name is Brad Deaton. My address is 1400 Battleground Avenue here in Greensboro. I'm one of the managing partners at Crosspoint Homes. First, I want to thank a couple of the neighbors that showed up. I appreciate the continued conversation that we've had with them, and that is one of the main reasons that we're requesting a 30-day continuance. There are four specific reasons. One, there's a set of buffers on the north side of the property that we have actually walked with the adjacent properties in the middle of a rainstorm that we were able to collectively agree on some things, but we could not adapt that into our plan soon enough. so we're still working on that buffer idea along the north side with the hackamore residents there was an adjacent property owner that approached us two weeks ago with an idea that we felt was it would drastically change our plan and our ideas but it was definitely worth reviewing and understanding he actually went out of town for several days we could not continue that conversation but it would change our plan drastically and need to feel that it would to fairly address that concern. transportation there are concerns with transportation about calming devices and so forth that's something that we still have to work through with the department of transportation and have not gotten to that point yet because these other issues are a little larger and that they change our our whole project in some cases then there's a pond on the property that is partially owned by two of the property owners along hackamore we have we have done a dam safety study on that and we have not got those results back we've had preliminary conversations but not definite to know exactly what we're going to be able to do with the pond and that's been a concern with those neighbors throughout the process we want to be able to address that to show them exactly what we can do and can't do with that pond i know that's more of a design but it affects our our layout and our design of what that might be so Those are our four very specific reasons where we feel we need a continuance of 30 days to properly address those. I did speak with the property owners. We will meet with them, and they will understand. We've been very transparent with this whole process. We would like to show them, understand we are going to modify some conditions, but we can't do that until we finalize the design. But we will meet with them, and they will completely understand what we're going to bring to the meeting next month. Any questions of the applicant?

Is there anyone here opposed to the continuance? Okay. It sounds like you're continuing to work with the neighbors and there's still some unresolved issues.

Correct. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Very good. Where are we with the commission, discussion, motion?

Yeah. Steve Nichols, I move that we grant the continuance.

Second. Okay, and this will be a continuance to the July 20th, 2026 meeting. Okay, all in favor of granting the continuance, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Okay, that case, first case is continued. And based on the information that I have received up here, we have no opposition to the other two cases. So we will move forward with the agenda as currently arranged. This next case will be PLP 2621Z-26-06-001. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County RS 40, residential single family, to City RS 3, residential single family 3, for the property identified as 4500 Trailwood Drive, generally described as west of Trailwood Drive and south of Post Bridge Drive, .79 acres.

this is the zoning map showing the subject property contains approximately 0.79 acres and is located west of trailwood drive and south of post bridge drive this is an annexation original zoning request from county rs40 residential single family to city r3 residential single family three north east and south of the request are zoned county rs40 west of the request is zoned city pud plan your development The arrow map shows that subject property currently contains a single family home. North and south of the request contains single family homes. East of the request contains undeveloped land. And west of the request contains common elements, a wet detention pond. in recommending approval of the request staff know that the gso 2040 comprehensive plan's future built format currently designates the property as urban general and as residential on the future land use map staff know that the proposed original zoning request supports both the comprehensive plans creating great places goal to expand greensboro citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses where we live work attend school shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant livable greensboro the proposed r3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low density single-family detached residential development of up to three dwelling units per acre and the request permits uses that are present on adjacent tracks that answer any questions any questions of staff

is the applicant here and would they like to speak any questions of the applicant's attorney this is for the uh be able to tie on the city water and sewer is what we're understanding okay commission members any questions all right we have two motions on this one would be for the annexation and one would be for the zoning commissioner keith peterson item plp 26-21 annexation make a motion that we approve steve nichols i second okay we have a motion to grant the annexation from mr peterson and a second from mr nichols all in favor please signify by saying aye aye And now we need a motion on this zoning.

Commissioner Keith Peterson, item Z-26-06-001. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's asking to recommend approval of the original zoning request of the property at 4500 Trailwood Drive from County RS-40, residential single family to City R-3, residential single family-3. to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public's interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plans, future built form map, and future land use map. The proposed city R3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size, physical condition, and other attributes of the area It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Second, Warren C. Downing.

Okay, we have a motion to approve by Mr. Peterson, a second by Mr. Downing. All in favor, saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, like sign. This becomes a recommendation to constitute a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, July 21, 2026 City Council meeting. Next case is Z-26-06-002, and this is a rezoning request from CDRM18, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18, to CDRM40, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 40, For the property identified as 208 West Fisher Avenue, generally described as north of Fisher Avenue and west of North Green Street, .38 acres.

Mr. Chisholm's. The zoning map shows that the subject property, as you see, it contains approximately 0.38 acres and is located north of West Fisher Avenue and west of North Green Street. The request should go from CDRM 18, conditional district residential multifamily 18, to CDRM 40, conditional district residential multifamily 40. North of the request is on CDRM 8. East and west of the request are zones R5, residential single family 5, and south of the request is zone R3 and PUD planning and development. The accepted property currently contains multi-family dwellings. North of the request contains multi-family dwellings under development. East and south of the request contain religious assembly uses, and west of the request contains single and multi-family homes. These are the conditions that were proposed by the applicant and advertised associated with the request. And in echoing approval of the request, staff know that the DSO 2040 comprehensive plans future build form map currently designates the property as urban central within an urban mixed use corridor. The essential property is designated as residential and commercial on the future land use map. The proposed zoning request supports the comprehensive plan filling in our framework goal to arrange our land uses to create a more vibrant, livable Greensboro, as well as the Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro's city-wide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. And second, that the request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan, and is generally compatible with the existing development and trend in the surrounding area.

Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Nelson? Would the applicant like two minutes?

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. Amanda Hodearn, 804 Green Valley Road, Suite 200 in Greensboro. I just wanted to quickly emphasize for the record that this is about preserving the status quo of the property and the two existing structures. That's the condition, as you note, and it just allows the property owner the ability to subdivide the two structures from one another and still meet the math requirements of the ordinance so this is a math-based reasoning request not a land use change reasoning request and this way we are able to fully utilize what we call the White House that has now been relocated to the corner for three dwelling units as it has three livable floors. And best get as much housing as we can out of this great site. And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any questions, Ms. Hodren? And just to clarify, that additional piece of property that's between the two, the vacant piece of dirt,

As you look at it.

Behind, yes.

Right, but that's needed for the aforementioned math problem to support seven units, four in the existing brick quadplex and three in the White House structure.

You'll be needing that for parking and setbacks and that sort of thing. Correct. So there won't be another building. That was the concern I'd heard from one of the neighbors. No, ma'am. Very good. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Do you have more to say? I do not.

Okay.

All right. All right. We have this case in front of us, and we need a motion.

The motion of Keith Peters on item Z-26-06-002. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action is to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 208 West Fisher Avenue, from CD-RM-18, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18, to CD-RM-40, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 40, to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers action taken to be reasonable and in the public's interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built format future land use map the proposed cd-rm-40 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area limits negative impacts on adjacent properties the request is reasonable due to the size physical conditions and other attributes of the area will benefit the property owners surrounding community and pool is in a public instance second washay downing okay we have a motion to approve from mr peterson a second by mr downing all in favor please signify

All right. This approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the Planning Department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal and all such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, July 21, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. we've got one more item that was not on your original agenda the ldf this text amendment zoning planning and development text amendments amending the greensboro land development ordinance section 30-5-6 front yard parking violations and 30-11-11 parking for single family and duplex dwellings. So can you give us some background on this? Mr. Nelson, who's going to do this?

I'm glad to go ahead and handle the honors on that. I'll be brief. To speak to kind of current circumstances with the ordinance, right? Section 30-1111 of the Land Development Ordinance touches on front yard parking. So if you have a single family residence, a duplex, think the part of the lot that is in front of the dwelling, right? You're not supposed to park on bare earth in that front yard area. You're supposed to be parking on a paved area. put in its plainest fashion here this amendment extends that into the side yard so the area between the dwelling and the side lot lines if you're going to park in that area it should also be unpaved unpaved surface so this while it changes language in a number of places that is what it can be distilled to this has taken the existing front yard regulations applying it to side yards as well that's that's really the long and short of it we added a little bit of language to explain the underpinning public purpose of it and things of that variety but again it's extending that to the side yards enforcement process will continue to be the same enforcement is handled separately under chapter 16 of our ordinances and handled through the through the city's code and zoning enforcement division so not really any change there just a change in the coverage area that this provision handles glad to say more of helpful

And how will this be communicated when someone calls in compliance and someone shows up at their front door and say, you've got cars?

I'm going to defer to my colleagues in code enforcement on the in-between time here and then, but I will say that the item is really just looking for the review and comment from the commission this evening. It is set to go in front of council in July to give that final approval on it. Again, I'll be coordinating with our friends in code and zoning enforcement around those sorts of questions.

Can I ask, what makes paved? It doesn't have to be an impermeable surface, right? It could be gravel. It can be some other things. But when you said paved, what does that mean?

It's actually spelled out.

Sorry.

It's a good question, Commissioner Oliver. We did add a definition section to this provision as well just to help avoid any ambiguity. Hard all-weather surface is defined as asphalt. concrete, brick, gravel, other approved material. But hard, all-weather surface does not include areas finished with dirt or mulch. So just being abundantly clear that that is not an area to be parked on. So again, just running through that list, asphalt, concrete, brick, gravel.

So gravel is not necessarily impermeable. That's not an easy word to say. Yeah. Okay. Because just walking through my neighborhood, I noticed two violations, and I didn't even know it was a rule. I mean, I'm seven years on Board of Adjustment. I don't remember having – was that where it would be enforced, on Board of Adjustment?

Yeah, by virtue of the way that the provisions are written, because again, there's sections in Chapter 30 of the Land Development Ordinance, and there's sections in Chapter 16 that all kind of touch upon this. The enforcement is actually not routed, or the appeals, I should say, is not routed through Board of Adjustment. It's routed separately.

Well, now you have people that you can call. You can call the city and report your neighbors. Okay.

Does the definition of gravel, how do you know the difference between sort of grainy sand and small gravel?

Well, it's spelled out in the ordinance as CABC parentheses gravel. Now, I don't know what CABC means.

Nor do I. I'm going to lean on some technical expertise, and I'll be honest with you, Commissioner Nickel, if need be, I may have to do a slight tweak on some of that language to make sure we have it dialed in in advance of July.

Well, honestly, it's more a question of curiosity than something that's going to determine my vote on this, but yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Russ said that it is crushed aggregate. is what C-A-B-C stands for.

Well, now that's completely clear.

Yeah. It's probably an industry term. I would point out sand, though, may not be interpreted to be a hard, all-weather surface.

Any other interesting questions? Okay. And we do have a consistency statement to read with this. Okay. Okay.

yes commissioner keith peterson the reference to the ldo text amendment from front and side yard parking for single family and two family dwellings the greensboro plan and zoning commission believes that his action to approve the front and side yard parking from four single family and two family dwelling text amendment to be consistent with the adopted gso 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public's interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with allowing development that supports the comprehensive plan, future built farm map, and future land use map. The text amendment better supports the goal of the GSO 2040 city's comprehensive plan in creating great places and filling in our framework. The request is reasonable due to the fact that the proposed amendments provide administrative clarity for both

staff and ordinance readers commissioner gilmore seconds okay we have a motion by mr peterson a second by mr gilmer to uh recommend the text amendment i was just going to say chair skeens i wasn't sure if the initial motion had said recommend i was going to And this is a recommendation, constitutes a favorable recommendation, and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, July 21st, 2026, City Council meeting. Next item on the agenda is items from the Planning and Zoning Commission members and or the committee.

I apologize. I heard the first and the second. Did we actually vote? No. Okay. All right. No worries.

We need to vote on the motion from Mr. Peterson and the committee. Mr. Gilmer, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you, I'm just in such a rush to make 6 o'clock.

No, no, no, no, you don't.

Okay, I'm sorry, that is not, it still constitutes a fable recommendation, but let the record show that Mr. Oliver did vote no. it's a six to one vote it's a six to one vote yes ma'am thank you okay thanks for that clarification i didn't hear it probably didn't ask for it okay and mr nelson is still standing there i am indeed yes ma'am are there things that you need to tell us uh only the caseload for july which is expected to be 12. yeah oh it's 12. we lost one okay

And then the one from tonight as well.

That's included in that one.

And the one what? The one from tonight that was continued would go to next month, so that would put us at 12. 12 cases plus a street closure request. Street closure request.

And there's two or three right-of-way cleanups. Yes, ma'am. So it's not as bad as it sounds. And is the continuance that was granted for, I guess it was a couple of months ago, for July on Pisgah Church, right? Pisgah Church. Is that on the agenda?

Ms. Turner, that request has been withdrawn by the applicant, so that request will not be heard in July.

Mr. Johnson at Pisgah and Willoughby has withdrawn.

He is not indicated as such and it would require a new application at this point.

Thank you. Any other comments or items from the Commission? motion to adjourn i'll second that one okay meeting is adjourned

. . . . . Thank you. Amen. . . . . Thank you. you Thank you.